Misquoting God: Homosexuality

I'm about to write possibly the most challenging blog I've ever had to in answer to one simple question "Does the bible condemn homosexuality?" I'm not here to muse on whether it's right or wrong. I'm questioning the black words printed upon white pages of Christianity's Holy Book, the inspired Word of God.

I have done research for the New Testament but I figure this entry will be far too long and boring to include that in this entry so that'll have to be another time. This entry is questioning the Old Testament's attitude towards homosexuality.

Ok, so where does homosexuality actually come into the bible? It's first instance is in Leviticus:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[2](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[3](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

There doesn't seem to be any disputing the pragmatics of that, right?

Wrong.

Michael England asserts that forbidding certain sexual acts was a way to distinguish between religious worship and Abrahamic and surrounding pagan faiths. In such faiths, homosexual acts featured as part of idolatrous rituals which are condemned in Christianity. England says that at the time, these instructions would have been seen as prohibiting these fertility rituals: not homosexuality. He points out that the word "abomination" is consistently used in reference to idolatry and idolatrous practises throughout the Old Testament. George Edwards agrees with this, saying that "the context of the two prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 suggest that what is opposed is not same-sex activity outside the cult, as in the modern secular sense, but within the cult identified as Canaanite". 


This would agree with other experts, who see some aspects of the Old Testament as being relevant to the time that they were written in but not so in today's society. They assert that in addition to the bible's spiritual components, it also contains material that reflects what it's authors believed about God and their cultural sensibilities, which agrees with my previous point. Thus, scholars raise the assertion that the parts of the bible that relate to "slavery, war, genocide, the marginalisation of women and homosexual activity may be the predominant culture's opinions at the time of the passage's writing."


Now, meaning of the text aside, we must decide whether, even if it DOES mean that homosexuality is wrong, is this relevant? Leviticus falls under Mosaic Law, and different churches have different opinions on whether or not the Law of Christ has made Mosaic Law irrelevant. Protestants, for example, have the view that NONE of Mosaic Law is relevant and Roman Catholics, which are often seen as the final authority in Christianity, say that only the ten commandments should be observed. Fundamentalists of course would argue that every single word of the bible must be observed but these are the same people that people dinosaur fossils were sent to "test our faith" and that, despite clear scientific evidence on the contrary, the world is less than ten thousand years old so excuse me if I leave those people's opinions out of this for now. 


The predominant view is that Jesus mediated a new covenant which teaches that it is through this that God offers atonement to mankind. Much of Mosaic Law DOES appear in Jesus' words and teachings, however, much of it doesn't, including the laws about animal sacrifice, which Jesus does not advocate, and homosexuality, which is not mentioned ONCE in the four gospels, which are widely acknowledged to be the biographies of Jesus' life and actions. 


Furthermore, Dispensationalism "holds that Mosaic Laws and the penalties attached to them were limited to the particular historical and theological setting of the Old Testament. In that view, the Law was given to Israel and does not apply since the age of the New Covenant. Replacing the Mosaic Law is the 'Law of Christ', which however holds definite similarities with the Mosaic Law in moral concerns, but is new and different, replacing the original Law."


Basically, even if homosexuality IS preached as being wrong in this (which there is debate on), most churches are under the impression that this law is irrelevant due to the new covenant. This shows me that homosexuality cannot be shown to be DEFINITELY wrong in the Old Testament as there are so many conflicting theories on it, so we should leave our prejudices at the door.


I am well aware that there are passages in the New Testament that many people interpret as being against homosexuality but that's for another time. This, very brief analysis quite obviously concludes that homosexuality is not prohibited in the Old Testament.